The developers believe that it is absolutely essential to provide support for hardware integrators and we are releasing our very own development board. Currently the development board is being manufactured and we aim to start selling it in Dec 2014.We are targeting large companies, hardware integrators and the +10 million strong Arduino, Raspberry PI and Beaglebone Black hobbyist user bases with our development board.Specifications:

3. Governs the distribution of the network fees. The GadgetCoin network charges hardware and Internet of Things devices a network fee for using the system. The collected network fees are fully shared with the peer nodes that validate and process the transactions. Only the transaction processing nodes will be eligible for network fees.

4. Allows fair coin distribution. All honest peer to peer nodes that participate in transaction processing can forge GadgetCoins - apart from the yearly interest, that's how new GadgetCoin supply enters into the market. The Proof of Consensus protocol provides incentives for keeping the network safe and assisting transaction processing.

The Gadget Protocol

The industry needs a protocol to facilitate communication between hardware and peer to peer networks. The Gadget Protocol defines the rules, syntax and semantics of the communication of hardware and decentralized peer to peer networks. By using the easy to understand and popular JSON lightweight data-interchange format to describe the protocol. Rules for data formats for data exchange, methods, callbacks, routing, authentication, access control, error codes and error handling.

We have approached the world's largest companies including IBM, Samsung, Sony, Siemens and Phillips to recommend our protocol for industry wide recognition. We will try everything we can to make our project relevant, get large industry players on board to adopt our open source smart contract technology.

You say there is no IPO or ICO, yet to purchase the hardware a coin must also be bought at $5 each. Is that not the same thing?

Thank you for your question. What we try to say is that we won't be asking an upfront 100, 500 or 1000 BTC from investors via an IPO. The coin must have a value and we aim to set it to $5 by selling GadgetCoin to hardware integrators, hobbyists with the development board, and then the end users can participate on the GadgetCoin Network and pay the network fees. Just like Ethereum will charges for network usage and collect "gas", the participating hardware modules will have to pay fees to execute smart contracts on the GadgetCoin Network. The network fees are as low as 0.00001 GDC for authorisation (i.e. to open a garage door via the Gadget Network), that means 1 GDC will be enough approximately for a year or so to operate an average home automation system. We believe it is reasonable to ask 1 GDC/year from a business or high end home for a secure, flexible, smart contract driven environment that takes out all the complexity of current hardware management platforms, and we hope pricing GDC to $5 is not over ambitious.

This is a very early stage of the coin and we are more than happy to take on board suggestions from the community to define the directions together. Please let us know if you have any more questions.

This sounds really interesting and different. I would like to understand more on what the hardware actually does, is it a mining tool?

Thanks for your encouraging words

Our hardware is a general purpose development board, that means there are many applications for the board, for instance, you can control a mining farm with it. As the schematics indicates we aim to give users a network enabled hardware module, it is especially suitable for sensor networks and Internet of Things applications. Hardware integrators don't touch new platforms without having a development board. Also, we target the +10 million strong Arduino, Raspberry PI and Beaglebone Black community.

As I said in their thread too, I like BitBay and Tilecoin, the two other IoT coins and this one seems a very good idea too. The market is endless for IoT, as you said Gartner projects plus 20 billion connected devices. That's a lot of potential customers for this and other IoT coins.

I am a very much against IPOs that completely destroyed the altcoin market, so very well done for not collecting moneys up front!

I will read the white paper, it's quite long by the way and will come back with my questions.

As I said in their thread too, I like BitBay and Tilecoin, the two other IoT coins and this one seems a very good idea too. The market is endless for IoT, as you said Gartner projects plus 20 billion connected devices. That's a lot of potential customers for this and other IoT coins.

I am a very much against IPOs that completely destroyed the altcoin market, so very well done for not collecting moneys up front!

I will read the white paper, it's quite long by the way and will come back with my questions.

Please don't hesitate to ask any questions, we will try to answer all questions and address all concerns. All suggestions are very much appreciated and will be taken on board, we aim to make this work by listening the community.

I am reading your white paper, there are lots of info in that, probably too much.

I understand the revenue sharing smart contracts and it is a really great idea. On that note, does your smart contract technology supports multi level marketing (MLM) type of trading? Is it possible to set up multi level sale for the hardware services if I manage the hardware on the Gadget Network using the gadgetcoin software? Similarly, would the GDC wallet support multi level marketing for currency sell? For example I have 100,000 GDC and want to sell it, can I set up my own multi level chain so I can get commission from GDC sales from the underlying sellers?

I am reading your white paper, there are lots of info in that, probably too much.

I understand the revenue sharing smart contracts and it is a really great idea. On that note, does your smart contract technology supports multi level marketing (MLM) schemes? Is it possible to set up multi level sale for the hardware services if I manage the hardware on the Gadget Network using the gadgetcoin software? Similarly, would the GDC wallet support multi level marketing for currency sell? For example I have 100,000 GDC and want to sell it, can I set up my own multi level chain so I can get commission from GDC sales from the underlying sellers?

The real beauty behind the smart contracts notion is that basically anything can be implemented with them, even complex business models like a multi level marketing scheme. I've copied a segment of the relevant code explanation from our white paper, and attached it below. As you can see, to implement a multi level structure you would have to define the layers of your MLM group in the "partners" array and extend the "shareRevenue function" to calculate the commission. Both of them are entirely doable using smart contracts.

The ML is quite a sensitive area in my opinion. It's one the trickier questions that we face - should we control how the users use the software, or allow the software to be utilized for any possibility? I think it is better if the community would decide by voting whether or not to enable MLM type of trading on the GadgetCoin Network. As far as I know multi level marketing is often associated with pyramid schemes and as a result gained somewhat of a bad reputation, but the real draw of the smart contracts and being open source means that we can support all types of trades. If the community is OK with that or does not care either way, then I see no issue utilizing the power of smart contracts for anything that is not illegal.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like we have to pay $5 to buy each coin from the devs. What if the value on exchanges drops below $5? They say it's not an IPO, but it sounds like one if the only way to initially obtain them is buying directly from the devs at a fixed price.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like we have to pay $5 to buy each coin from the devs. What if the value on exchanges drops below $5? They say it's not an IPO, but it sounds like one if the only way to initially obtain them is buying directly from the devs at a fixed price.

Thanks for your reply.

We definitely need to sort out the distribution of the coin as soon as possible. This is one of the most important aspects of the project and being technical minded devs and focusing on software development, we have neglected to work out the distribution model yet :-)) We hope the feedback and opinions on this thread will help us to finalize the distribution process and ensure that all other important areas have a fair, decentralized and sustainable operation in place.

There are a few key assumptions

a) We are not comfortable with the ICO/IPO concept and therefore will not be collecting large chunks of Bitcoins from investors prior to releasing the open source software, the hardware and lunching the network.

b) We thought in order to keep the value of coin stable, or ideally growing continuously, the GDC Network should charge network fees in GadgetCoin (just like Ethereum charges in ether) for executing hardware related functions on the GDC Network. This will increase the demand for GadgetCoin as hardware operators need GadgetCoin to operate their devices on our peer to peer network. We think charging 1 GDC network fee per year per device is reasonable. If the sale price of GDC is $5 then that will act as an expenditure for a business to use the GDC network.

We didn't mean we should collect $5 for 1 GDC from our community members, supporters, early stage investors. Instead we aim to charge $5 to businesses that are using the network.

Also, it is important to mention that the developers will not be selling any coins. GDC Foundation will have the initial 10 million GDC, which will be kept on a smart contract controlled account that requires multiple signatures to do anything with the money. The multi signature will be activated only by community voting. This way we can have in place full transparency and community control.

Perhaps keeping the GDC Foundation in the distribution loop is fundamentally wrong. The real question is should we first distribute the 10 million coins to the community and investors, and then the hardware operators have to buy GadgetCoin on the open market? After this we can adjust the network fee for hardware functions on a daily basis depending on the price of GadgetCoin but to keep the network fee close to the $5 per year price?

Perhaps keeping the GDC Foundation in the distribution loop is fundamentally wrong. The real question is should we first distribute the 10 million coins to the community and investors, and then the hardware operators have to buy GadgetCoin on the open market? After this we can adjust the network fee for hardware functions on a daily basis depending on the price of GadgetCoin but to keep the network fee close to the $5 per year price?

Please let us know what you think?

I think you should first distribute the 10 million coins to the community, but as a bitcointalk communty member my opinion is biased.